Research is about innovation, and yet many aspects of the research process often seem steeped in tradition. Many conference program committees and journal editorial boards - the traditional gatekeepers in research communities - are composed primarily of people with a long history of contributions and/or other well-established credentials, who typically share a collective understanding of how research ought to be conducted, evaluated and reported. Some gatekeepers are opening up to new possibilities for innovations in the research process, and one such community is the program committee for CSCW 2012, the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work ... or as I (and some other instigators) like to call it, Computer-Supported Cooperative Whatever.

This year, CSCW is introducing a new dimension to the review process for Papers & Notes[deadline: June 3]. In keeping with tradition, researchers and practitioners involved in innovative uses of technology to enable or enhance communication, collaboration, information sharing and coordination are invited to submit 10-page papers and/or 4-page notes describing their work. The CSCW tradition of a double-blind review process will also continue, in which the anonymous submissions are reviewed by at least three anonymous peers (the program committee knows the identities of authors and reviewers, but the authors and reviewers do not know each others' respective identities). These external reviewers assess the submitted paper or note's prospective contributions to the field, and recommend acceptance or rejection of the submission for publication in the proceedings and presentation at the conference. What's new this year is an addition to the traditional straight-up accept or reject recommendation categories: reviewers will be asked to consider whether a submission might fit into a new middle category, revise & resubmit.

CSCW, CHI and other conferences have enhanced their review processes in recent years by offering authors an opportunity to respond with a rebuttal, in which they may clarify aspects of the submission - and its contribution(s) - that were not clear to the reviewers [aside: I recently shared some reflections on reviews, rebuttals and respect based on my experience at CSCW and CHI]. For papers that are not clear accepts (with uniformly high ratings among reviewers) - or clear rejects (uniformly low ratings) - the program committee must make a judgment call on whether the clarifications proposed in a rebuttal would represent a sufficient level of contribution in a revised paper, and whether the paper could be reasonably expected to be revised in the short window of time before the final, camera-ready version of the paper must be submitted for publication. The new process will allocate more time to allow the authors of some borderline submissions the opportunity to actually revise the submission rather than limiting them to only proposing revisions.

Papers and Notes will undergo two review cycles. After the first review a submission will receive either "Conditional Accept," "Revise/Resubmit," or "Reject." Authors of papers that are not rejected have about 6 weeks to revise and resubmit them. The revision will be reviewed as the basis for the final decision. This is like a journal process, except that it is limited to one revision with a strict deadline.

The primary contact author will be sent the first round reviews. "Conditional Accepts" only require minor revisions and resubmission for a second quick review. "Revise/Resubmits" will require significant attention in preparing the resubmission for the second review. Authors of Conditional Accepts and Revise/Resubmits will be asked to provide a description of how reviewer comments were addressed. Submissions that are rejected in the first round cannot be revised for CSCW 2012, but authors can begin reworking them for submission elsewhere. Authors need to allocate time for revisions after July 22, when the first round reviews are returned [the deadline for initial submissions is June 3]. Final acceptance decisions will be based on the second submission, even for Conditional Accepts.

Although the new process includes a revision cycle for about half of the submissions, community input and analysis of CSCW 2011 data has allowed us to streamline the process. It should mean less work for most authors, reviewers, and AC members.

The revision cycle enables authors to spend a month to fix the English, integrating missing papers in the literature, redoing an analysis, or adopt terminology familiar to this field, problems that in the past could lead to rejection. It also provides the authors of papers that would have been accepted anyway to fix minor things noted by reviewers.

This new process is designed to increase the number and diversity of papers accepted into the final program. Some members of the community - especially those in academia - may be concerned that increasing the quantity may decrease the [perceived] quality of submissions, i.e., instead of the "top" 20% of papers being accepted, perhaps as many as 30% (or more) may be accepted (and thus the papers and notes that are accepted won't "count" as much). However, if the quality of that top 30% (or more) is improved through the revision and resubmission process, then it is hoped that the quality of the program will not be adversely affected by the larger number of accepted papers presented there ... and will actually be positively affected by the broader range of accepted papers.

I often like to reflect on Ralph Waldo Emerson's observation:

All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.

If research - and innovation - is about experimentation, then it certainly makes sense to experiment with the ways that experiments are assessed by the research communities to which they may contribute new insights and knowledge.

There is a fundamental tension between rigorous validation and innovative exploration. Maintaining high standards is important to ensuring the trustworthiness of science, especially in light of the growing skepticism about science among some segments of the public. But scientists and other innovators who blaze new trails often find it challenging to validate their most far-reaching ideas to the satisfaction of traditional gatekeepers, and so many conferences and journals tend to be filled with more incremental - and more easily validatable - results. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as many far-reaching ideas turn out to be wrong, but I increasingly believe that all studies and models are wrong, but some are useful, and so opening up new or existing channels for reviewing and reporting research will promote greater innovation.

I think it is especially important for a conference like CSCW that is dedicated to innovations in communication, collaboration, coordination and information sharing (which [obviously] includes social media) to be experimenting with alternatives, and I look forward to participating in the upcoming journey of discovery. And in the interest of full disclosure, one way I am participating in this journey is as one of the Publicity Co-Chairs for CSCW 2012, but I would be writing about this innovation even if I were not serving in that official capacity.